Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

precedentwill
trustwill

Related Cases

Stephens v. Beard, 485 S.W.3d 914, 59 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 446
View Case »
Cessac v. Stevens, 127 So.3d 675, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D2444
View Case »
Litevich v. Probate Court, Dist. of West Haven, Not Reported in A.3d, 2013 WL 2945055
View Case »
Baldwin v. Estate of Winters, 944 So.2d 437, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D2868
View Case »
Theodore v. Theodore, 57 N.M. 434, 259 P.2d 795, 1953 -NMSC- 059
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Keteltas v. Keteltas, 27 Sickels 312, 72 N.Y. 312, 1878 WL 12492, 28 Am.Rep. 155

Facts

William A. Keteltas executed a will directing that his residuary estate be distributed among his 'next of kin' according to New York's intestacy laws. At the time of the will's execution, he had no wife but married later. The dispute arose when his widow claimed a share of the estate, arguing that she should be included as 'next of kin.' The court needed to determine the meaning of 'next of kin' in the context of the will.

The testator first gives all his property to his executors in trust, and directs them to set apart and invest the sum of $10,000 for the benefit of each of five persons, and to pay over the income of such sum to each of such persons during life, and at death to pay the principal sum to the children of the person dying; but if no children be left, then the principal sum of each share is to fall into and become part of the residuary estate.

Issue

Does the term 'next of kin' in the will of William A. Keteltas include his widow?

The important words to be construed here are 'next of kin.' These words ordinarily do not legally include a widow.

Rule

The term 'next of kin' ordinarily refers to blood relatives and does not include a widow unless the context of the will indicates otherwise.

It is a general rule of construction that when a testator uses technical words, he is presumed to employ them in their legal sense, and that words in general are to be taken in their ordinary and grammatical sense unless the context clearly indicates the contrary.

Analysis

The court analyzed the language of the will and found that the term 'next of kin' was used in its ordinary sense, which does not include a widow. The court noted that at the time the will was made, the testator had no wife and did not indicate any intention to include her in the distribution of his estate. The court relied on precedents that established the interpretation of 'next of kin' as referring solely to blood relatives.

We can perceive no material distinction between the language used in those cases and that used in this.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the widow was not included in the term 'next of kin' as used in the will, affirming the lower court's judgment.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the estate of William A. Keteltas, as the court ruled that the widow was not entitled to a share of the estate.

We believe that the construction we have given to these clauses will, in most cases which may arise, be found to be in harmony with the actual intention of the testator.

You must be